Seems a little less cringe than Horizon Worlds. Yet I am skeptical of the "alternate space" application of VR, I am much more excited to see VR applications that tell a story the way theme park rides do.
At a certain point you might not have enough third party devs to really exercise an API or drive adoption and developing a first party app is a good way to get the party started.
Assuming all the action takes place in a confined room it is not a particularly difficult problem to solve compared to an OASIS or Sword Art Online-like virtual environment which would have the problems of an open world game to solve.
It's like an MMO with bad graphics embedded into a web browser, except there's no fun and you're not allowed to leave and the gameplay is Microsoft Office:
If not just Firefox, other related products. They seem to have the same issue as Google with starting and dropping strange products. I was actually considering using their password manager on iOS when they announced it would be discontinued.
Mozilla's "Fluent" internationalization software is some of the best out there. It is a real shame that they are not doing more with it and integrating it with other tools in this space.
Lockwise has been absorbed into Firefox now. So if you don't mind installing Firefox on iOS, you can install Firefox to get the password manager, which integrates with iOS's password autofill, even to a better extent than the old Lockwise app. The old Lockwise app tended to not respond from iOS' autofill "trigger". Firefox doesn't have this problem.
This is a bit of a "well-actually." Yes, all the functionality of Lockwise is still there, but the situation is complicated enough that not everyone is going to get it. For every person you correct on HN regarding this, there are hundreds of other people who don't visit HN, never bringing it up in a context where someone can teach them how to use Firefox as a password manager on iOS.
It's great if you know about it. But it still shake's people's confidence about the future of any new product announcements from Mozilla.
That's also true and I agree. It's confusing. It also took me a while to realize that Firefox for iOS has gained the built-in password manager and that I could replace Lockwise (which, due to it often not responding to the iOS password autofill trigger, was really annoying).
I would have prefered if Mozilla simply fixed Lockwise.
"Just focus on Firefox" will lead to stagnation and eventual death.
The essential problem here is that a web browser is nothing without content, and much of the most popular content on the web is found through Google, a company who grows closer every day to locking down a vertical monopoly. Firefox would have to be ten times as good as Chrome to even be on equal footing, and while it does have some marginal advantages, nothing is enough of a deal breaker that I would stop visiting YouTube just to avoid using Chrome [1]. Firefox really was that much better than IE6, but Firefox isn't competing with abandonware this time around.
Mozilla needs to stimulate the creation and viewing of content outside of Google-owned walled gardens. Pocket Recommendations were an obvious attempt at this; just make sure all the recommended articles actually open correctly in Firefox. This was probably also the biggest reason why they bent over so far backwards to accommodate NetFlix, who would have been happy to make sure Firefox worked correctly just to avoid being vertically integrated to death by Chrome and Google Play Movies/TV.
The relationship between Steam and Linux comes to mind. Funny how Linux became a viable gaming platform right after Microsoft announced the Windows Store.
[1]: This will, of course, change once uBlock Origin stops working.
> The essential problem here is that a web browser is nothing without content
While this makes business sense, what kind of world are we creating where nothing is worth investing in if we can't monetize the fuck out of it? Where KPI and user engagement is king?
Thanks, I hate that. Mozilla is dying because they've forgotten their core product. We're here for the browser, not the content that makes us the product.
> what kind of world are we creating where nothing is worth investing in if we can't monetize the fuck out of it?
Where did that come from?!
I never said anything about monetization. I said "content," and there's plenty of non-commercial and indie content that is only tested in Chrome. You can probably root-cause analyze it to monetization (indie website creators only test in Chrome because they only use Chrome, and they only use Chrome because they also happen to frequent YouTube which works best in Chrome, or maybe because their PC came with Chrome by default), but blaming Mozilla for the fact that most people don't exclusively use non-commercial websites seems a bit silly.
> We're here for the browser, not the content that makes us the product.
I really don't understand what you mean here. What do you even do with Firefox, if not open web pages in it?
I doubt that furries are that interested in stuff that looks worse than years old Second life content ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYWBjOk6Wsk ). Nevermind what they can have today in Neos VR.
- "We have invented godlike powers over space, time and perception, and we have earned our escape from the confines of corporate convention. It should be a turning point in society and economics, a jewelled pivot in human experience. And what does Facebook do with this defining moment of new potential? It reinvents the office meeting, the absolute epitome of everything we have paid with blood to leave."
Management and sales completed their takeover of Mozilla over the last 5 years. The Mozilla we knew for decades is dead and gone, and now there's a zombie consumer tech company left in its place.
They were taking in a half billion a year and decided to be a haven for at-best, moderately related technology development efforts. They were losing money.
So, after enough bleeding, they stopped doing that and are now experimenting (this is an experiment, just like MDN plus and others) with other things to do. They look like they're still trying to evolve the web.
They're aiming for a bit of revenue and trying to aim more precisely at the web. In lieu of Rust, which is a wonderful language, but neither web nor revenue-producing.
> So they've gone from technology experiments to... uh, technology experiments?
I think there is a distinction between technology experiments (which produce prototypes and proofs of concept) and product experiments (which produce MVPs).
I wish they'd abandon the technology experiments in favor of browser experiments. I don't want Firefox to reinvent the web, I want it to be as pleasant and useful as it was ten years ago.
Hey, most of the hamburger menu is visible when you tap it now, and the part that isn't will scroll in. (I have the url bar at the bottom, so it's a little bit harder, I guess) So that's progress.
For a few weeks now I'm getting the error where if I exit and resume Firefox Mobile too quickly the active tab will be blank grey, and if I try to change tabs the second tab will display the page from the first tab but I can't interact with it. Any subsequent tab I switch to gets replaced with the first tab. It's infuriating.
Tried "Create Room" to see what was up. Denied microphone permission because I just wanted to look around and it doesn't need it for that—there won't even be anyone else in the room, right? Even if there were, I wouldn't say anything. Tells me I can't get in without enabling microphone.
:-/
What's with the push to these virtual working spaces? I've had some exposure to earlier ones (which look basically identical to this new wave, looking over the very limited info on this landing page) and they're the worst. Awkward, and eat tons of system resources for no benefit over a text or video chat.
Seeing the similarity between this and their previous efforts like WebThings, in terms of providing more open alternatives to upcoming proprietary trends. It's unfortunate they lack follow through and commitment.
Well I have defended Mozillas decisions in the past and still thought they where the good guys, then they came out with this trash. Waste of money. If they can eventually monetize it then great, but personally, I don't think it will generate any revenue and just be a money-sink.
Guess it might be time to switch browser soon ): Google have won.
Oh didn't see that. Page was refusing to load at first.
Well this restores a bit of confidence if they actually manage to get customers. Though, I still think they won't make their initial investment back and then they will kill the product. Hopefully I am wrong.
I love this product, and I don't get the negativity here. For NFTs it is perfect as a gallery that you can join with people to present your work. You can meet up. There is an editor where you can model spaces. Do I miss something? Is there something else with multiple user capacity and ease of development? https://hubs.mozilla.com/spoke
The feedback so far is pretty negative, but I think folks that poo poo these virtual office environments fail to channel the PG heuristic of "what is this the [ancient tech version of something that is now ubiquitous] of?" when thinking about these spaces.
As a substitute for the collaboration tools we now have, these are unquestionably terrible. But for those of you that can, I'd highly recommend checking out PokerStars VR before then diving into your opinion of virtual work environments.
If you've ever played poker with friends, you'll quickly realize that there are many parts of IRL poker that... truly suck. Play is slower than what you would like, and, if you play "correctly", the ratio of hands you are playing to time you are waiting for shuffling,dealing,etc. is quite obnoxious. There are pain points, even though overall it is super fun to play poker with friends.
Pokerstars, to my mind, did a masterful job in faithfully recreating poker in the virtual world, but then augmenting it by taking advantage of the VR tech. There's still a table, there's still a deck, the rules are the same, etc. But, because of the medium, the game goes... MUCH faster. Therefore, you get to play more hands, which is more fun. Also, yes, you might still wait around for hands, but now you get all sorts of virtual sidegames or dumb tchotchkis you can play with on your table, which is fun. Your environment can be any one of really incredible settings that help set the mood for a poker night, which is probably nicer than your mom's basement. Etc, etc, etc.
My point is, poker is a pretty mundane game from an IRL perspective, yet I fundamentally believe that had I the option to invite 5 friends over to play poker in my house versus getting the same 5 friends to meet me in the VR room, that we'd have far more fun in the VR room. This before the fact that the friction of getting together physically is now erased, so chances are we might even get to play more often. This works, however, because it isn't a perfect analogy to the real world poker; rather, because its virtual, there are enough different things that help make it better to an extent that it beats its real world counterpart (at least for me).
All of this stuff is pretty nascent and I agree that there's lots of crap there, but there will be something unquestionably brilliant about inhabiting virtual spaces with folks where you can bend some laws of physics to make mundane things (like meetings) work a little bit better than they do IRL.
This is a good point. I don't agree that PokerStars VR is better than real life and won't be until the tech can replicate details like facial expressions, but the concept of eliminating unnecessary pain points is sound. It reminds me of the gradual removal of the old skeumorphic designs in iOS. However, Mozilla Hubs isn't doing any of that. I can't find a single advantage it has over any other collaboration software, frankly.
Tabltop simulator is great! The environment is intuitive enough that even my tech-illiterate family don't mind using it (one cousin actually suggested everyone bring their laptops to an in-person game night), and it works well on a traditional PC.
I'm honestly surprised that VR hasn't been a bigger impact on board games. Besides the obvious fact that you can more easily get people together, software is great at handling the non-gameplay related "administration" that takes time away from the fun. Things that come to mind: shuffling decks, misdeals, misunderstood rule-sets (I'm looking at you D&D 3.5).
I guess the downside is also pretty big: no face-to-face communication - which itself can be a detriment to gameplay in games like Poker or PvPvE games like Dead of Winter. Also the tactile-ness of board games is such a nice escape from everything being digitized these days.
It's limited by how many people have VR rigs in the first place, and by the other things people might do instead if they've already decided they're going to play a multiplayer game on a computer or console, that aren't virtual board games.
I'd rather hop into Minecraft or whatever with some friends, if that's what I'm doing, than card or board game simulator. I'd guess that's a common sentiment.
Further, I'd rather play some very plain poker game (like the old Windows card games) with voice chat on than try to do some VR thing. Most of the benefits, and doesn't monopolize your attention. But that part may just be me.
That's interesting, because personally I seem to dislike Tabletop Simulator; I feel super slow and constrained by it, as if I was having my hands tied, and much prefer playing the same games live with friends (or solo!) and manipulating real physical objects. Additionally, I much prefer the fact that real board games give me one more reason to unglue myself from a computer screen. I'm really curious why mine and yours reception seem so different!
Though I didn't have an opportunity to play it in VR using VR goggles - is this the aspect that is important here? Does your whole family play it with VR goggles?
I think it really depends on the game you’re playing. Some are more scripted than others and games that require moving lots of pieces are really tedious even if there’s some automation.
Scripts taking away some of the more tedious parts, and no clean up, no setup. I mean we'd all still rather be in the same room sharing food and all that, but the advantages and the large game library really do help.
> All of this stuff is pretty nascent and I agree that there's lots of crap there, but there will be something unquestionably brilliant about inhabiting virtual spaces with folks where you can bend some laws of physics to make mundane things (like meetings) work a little bit better than they do IRL.
I totally agree with this sentiment and I don't think you even need VR/AR etc, to achieve it. This is a big reason why I helped build spotvirtual.com. As a kid, some of my most meaningful relationships and experiences were forged through online gaming (ever played UO?). A big part of this wasn’t necessarily the gameplay, but just the shared experience of being part of a virtual space that had its own rules.
There is definitely room to apply this same experience to a work setting, where mundane things can be transformed into something more meaningful and effective.
1) I worked on this kind of stuff in the late 90s early 2000s, aside graphics fidelity and finally getting decent vr headsets and trackers this looks about the same in terms of features.
2) I lived through the transition to desktop os windowed environments, there was a lot of talk at the time about how we'd never use a commandline again, but things have boomeranged for many, many people still use the cli. I don't see this replacing video chat or even text chat.
3) I talked with a small company locally right after the htc vive came out, they were building tech like this (virtual meeting spaces) and I went to check it out, it was actually also the first time I had used the valve vr technology. The man interviewing me was in another room also on a vive rig. It is quite cool how eye contact works in a vr space. But at the end of the interview I left knowing that even if I got an offer I wouldn't take it but that also this technology was not going to break out in any meaningful way for a very long time. I'd been through this before and other simpler technologies just worked better.
> there are many parts of IRL poker that... truly suck. Play is slower than what you would like, and, if you play "correctly", the ratio of hands you are playing to time you are waiting for shuffling,dealing,etc. is quite obnoxious.
The point of poker with friends isn't to grind out hands with an optimal strategy as quickly as possible.
I played Dominion with friends online a few times during the pandemic. And I adore how much faster it is. With all the counting, dealing, shuffling, VP calculations and so on taken care of, the game plays about twice as fast. And that really does enhance the experience for me and my friend group. It improves game feel. And game feel is so important.
Metaverse is okay but considering people are depressed and isolated being on social media today I don’t see how adding even more layers between reality is going to help.
I wish technology would make IRL better, instead of delegating all problems online.
It makes sense as a virtual space for remote classrooms etc when everyone's going nuts over relying on Zoom, but it seems like this is just a vague "metaverse" thing with no particular problem in mind. Instead of wanting to be excited, it looks like something that's going to get axed as a lot of Mozilla's experiments.
Facebook: Meetings are fun, let's do them in VR!
Mozilla: Meetings suck, let's try to make us tear our hair out less over it with virtual spaces.
The last Twitch VOD is from two years ago, and YouTube one year ago, so it's basically dead. There's cool stuff to be done in virtual spaces, but if people don't know what they're trying to address, you get the next Google Glass.
I've seen this be used for providing a space to explore 3D scans of an abandoned mining town in California: https://poly.cam/cerro-gordo. I think there's definitely some cool applications along those lines of providing a way to interact with real physical locations virtually with other people at the same time.
I guess this is a "metaverse" play - I like the idea of it but having tried something similar a while ago (albeit with 2D spaces) it seemed kinda pointless. I don't think the vicinity aspects really added anything in a work environment - if anything it took away from modern communication (i.e. you can't just ping someone to chat to them there and then, you had to go and "find" them in the virtual space before you could talk, unlike e.g. slack or whatever)
The only time I've seen it even get close to working was for "work socials" where it was natural to wander around and mix with people or play games together in the space - i.e. where you are not actively trying to get something done.
Honestly I'd give it a give it try because of the mozilla name ...
This reminds me of the old internet when folks tried all sorts of weird stuff, maybe failed, but they were neat attempts. I still remember Microsoft Comic Chat.
I'm really bummed out by all the negativity here on HN. Folks talk about simple web and seem to ... maybe like the idea of developers being adventurous (or maybe just founders...) but then on HN we see a volume of complaints if there isn't a clear use case / something isn't polished to high heaven.
I do feel like current conferencing apps like meet and zoom are probably not the endgame for digital communication and adding a 3D spacial element can make a lot of interactions intuitive, even if it feels silly at first. like spontaneously breaking out a conversation into small groups if there is proximity based audio chat. You don't have to buy into the "metaverse" to see the utility in a fun little tool like this.
I got the same "old, weird internet" vibe that you did. Back in the 90's there seemed to be more moonshot ideas like VRML and The Palace Chat - things that were maybe a little silly and geeky but at least pointed the way to something that could eventually become more useful and developed.
Main annoyance I have with it is that the extensions are still whitelisted and limited. Not a huge issue for me either and I still use it over all other mobile browsers but it's the most common issue I run into with it.
That's why it's an annoyance and not a blocker for me. Most things that I want are already white listed but there's a few random ones that aren't but aren't huge deals since I don't generally do those things with them on mobile anyway.
Hey Amar, thank you for making this video, it mirrors my experience over the last year and I've been searching for way to express and explain this universe to others. You've done a wonderful job
I like VR, but haven’t gotten into these chat like spaces yet. I feel like the setup is just way too cumbersome still. But this video is very convincing.
It makes me wonder how it would feel to walk around a virtual museum like this in VR and experience it with friends. However because the avatars are so loud it would likely detract from the experience.
Regardless of the discussion of what the actual point is, can VR designers finally understand that graphics CANNOT be this bad. It means instant dismissal.
In their free time, people watch Pixar movies and play near-photo realistic games. And have been for 1-2 decades. You seriously cannot get away with this absolute garbage. It's late 1980s VR quality. It's below second life, which is ancient.
Up the bar. Create a world where people actually want to be or this will never work.
I wonder if one could build a compelling 2D pixel-art collaboration place. The startup barriers would be so much lower, you could try and fail with lots of ideas.
Not too busy, not slow to render on low-end hardware, not blocky, and importantly not trying too hard to be photo-realistic. Enough spatial cues to see this as a 3D environment, though.
A world where I'd like to be is not necessarily photo-realistic at all. Some conscious suspension of disbelief is actually helpful.
FWIW, I know of a group of language learners who have setup one of these rooms with the rule that conversations only take place in the foreign language. So far, it has been very effective in giving learners a place to practice and hone their language skills.
I remember walking away from the 2009 film 'Surrogates' (starring Bruce Willis) and being _incredibly_ disturbed at the idea that he/his wife hadn't actually seen/heard/felt/etc. each other (or anyone) in years. I'm not against VR as a respite, but this and Facebook's “metaverse” push makes me want to spend LESS time with my devices, not more.
174 comments
[ 0.27 ms ] story [ 235 ms ] threadhttps://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/WebXR_Devic...
At a certain point you might not have enough third party devs to really exercise an API or drive adoption and developing a first party app is a good way to get the party started.
Assuming all the action takes place in a confined room it is not a particularly difficult problem to solve compared to an OASIS or Sword Art Online-like virtual environment which would have the problems of an open world game to solve.
https://uploads-prod.reticulum.io/files/70c74c3c-4727-42eb-8...
This product is psychological abuse.
(I did try the demo; I'm not judging solely from screenshots).
It's great if you know about it. But it still shake's people's confidence about the future of any new product announcements from Mozilla.
I would have prefered if Mozilla simply fixed Lockwise.
Thunderbird is still very relevant (not everyone wants to use web based), but they've let go of it.
I'm personally also quite happy they took a detour to promote and use (to some extend) Rust. IMHO a pity they've stopped the Servo project.
Rust seems to have more uptake than FF lately.
The essential problem here is that a web browser is nothing without content, and much of the most popular content on the web is found through Google, a company who grows closer every day to locking down a vertical monopoly. Firefox would have to be ten times as good as Chrome to even be on equal footing, and while it does have some marginal advantages, nothing is enough of a deal breaker that I would stop visiting YouTube just to avoid using Chrome [1]. Firefox really was that much better than IE6, but Firefox isn't competing with abandonware this time around.
Mozilla needs to stimulate the creation and viewing of content outside of Google-owned walled gardens. Pocket Recommendations were an obvious attempt at this; just make sure all the recommended articles actually open correctly in Firefox. This was probably also the biggest reason why they bent over so far backwards to accommodate NetFlix, who would have been happy to make sure Firefox worked correctly just to avoid being vertically integrated to death by Chrome and Google Play Movies/TV.
The relationship between Steam and Linux comes to mind. Funny how Linux became a viable gaming platform right after Microsoft announced the Windows Store.
[1]: This will, of course, change once uBlock Origin stops working.
While this makes business sense, what kind of world are we creating where nothing is worth investing in if we can't monetize the fuck out of it? Where KPI and user engagement is king?
Thanks, I hate that. Mozilla is dying because they've forgotten their core product. We're here for the browser, not the content that makes us the product.
Where did that come from?!
I never said anything about monetization. I said "content," and there's plenty of non-commercial and indie content that is only tested in Chrome. You can probably root-cause analyze it to monetization (indie website creators only test in Chrome because they only use Chrome, and they only use Chrome because they also happen to frequent YouTube which works best in Chrome, or maybe because their PC came with Chrome by default), but blaming Mozilla for the fact that most people don't exclusively use non-commercial websites seems a bit silly.
> We're here for the browser, not the content that makes us the product.
I really don't understand what you mean here. What do you even do with Firefox, if not open web pages in it?
https://www.theregister.com/2021/08/23/horizon_workrooms_pro...
- "We have invented godlike powers over space, time and perception, and we have earned our escape from the confines of corporate convention. It should be a turning point in society and economics, a jewelled pivot in human experience. And what does Facebook do with this defining moment of new potential? It reinvents the office meeting, the absolute epitome of everything we have paid with blood to leave."
FireFox Mobile is a mess that breaks if you toggle Desktop Mode and hit the Back button but this is what Mozilla is spending man-hours on.
Relevant, as this is exactly what happened: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4VBqTViEx4
They were taking in a half billion a year and decided to be a haven for at-best, moderately related technology development efforts. They were losing money.
So, after enough bleeding, they stopped doing that and are now experimenting (this is an experiment, just like MDN plus and others) with other things to do. They look like they're still trying to evolve the web.
I'm not being snarky: how is this different/better?
I think there is a distinction between technology experiments (which produce prototypes and proofs of concept) and product experiments (which produce MVPs).
Hey, most of the hamburger menu is visible when you tap it now, and the part that isn't will scroll in. (I have the url bar at the bottom, so it's a little bit harder, I guess) So that's progress.
:-/
What's with the push to these virtual working spaces? I've had some exposure to earlier ones (which look basically identical to this new wave, looking over the very limited info on this landing page) and they're the worst. Awkward, and eat tons of system resources for no benefit over a text or video chat.
What am I overlooking, how is this going to help Mozilla and the web?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_5w8xbeCc2Q
Seeing the similarity between this and their previous efforts like WebThings, in terms of providing more open alternatives to upcoming proprietary trends. It's unfortunate they lack follow through and commitment.
Guess it might be time to switch browser soon ): Google have won.
Well this restores a bit of confidence if they actually manage to get customers. Though, I still think they won't make their initial investment back and then they will kill the product. Hopefully I am wrong.
Or cave wall.
As a substitute for the collaboration tools we now have, these are unquestionably terrible. But for those of you that can, I'd highly recommend checking out PokerStars VR before then diving into your opinion of virtual work environments.
If you've ever played poker with friends, you'll quickly realize that there are many parts of IRL poker that... truly suck. Play is slower than what you would like, and, if you play "correctly", the ratio of hands you are playing to time you are waiting for shuffling,dealing,etc. is quite obnoxious. There are pain points, even though overall it is super fun to play poker with friends.
Pokerstars, to my mind, did a masterful job in faithfully recreating poker in the virtual world, but then augmenting it by taking advantage of the VR tech. There's still a table, there's still a deck, the rules are the same, etc. But, because of the medium, the game goes... MUCH faster. Therefore, you get to play more hands, which is more fun. Also, yes, you might still wait around for hands, but now you get all sorts of virtual sidegames or dumb tchotchkis you can play with on your table, which is fun. Your environment can be any one of really incredible settings that help set the mood for a poker night, which is probably nicer than your mom's basement. Etc, etc, etc.
My point is, poker is a pretty mundane game from an IRL perspective, yet I fundamentally believe that had I the option to invite 5 friends over to play poker in my house versus getting the same 5 friends to meet me in the VR room, that we'd have far more fun in the VR room. This before the fact that the friction of getting together physically is now erased, so chances are we might even get to play more often. This works, however, because it isn't a perfect analogy to the real world poker; rather, because its virtual, there are enough different things that help make it better to an extent that it beats its real world counterpart (at least for me).
All of this stuff is pretty nascent and I agree that there's lots of crap there, but there will be something unquestionably brilliant about inhabiting virtual spaces with folks where you can bend some laws of physics to make mundane things (like meetings) work a little bit better than they do IRL.
More VR like tabletop simulator please!
I guess the downside is also pretty big: no face-to-face communication - which itself can be a detriment to gameplay in games like Poker or PvPvE games like Dead of Winter. Also the tactile-ness of board games is such a nice escape from everything being digitized these days.
I'd rather hop into Minecraft or whatever with some friends, if that's what I'm doing, than card or board game simulator. I'd guess that's a common sentiment.
Further, I'd rather play some very plain poker game (like the old Windows card games) with voice chat on than try to do some VR thing. Most of the benefits, and doesn't monopolize your attention. But that part may just be me.
Tabletop simulator in particular is problematic because of it's physics engine and the chaos that that always causes.
Though I didn't have an opportunity to play it in VR using VR goggles - is this the aspect that is important here? Does your whole family play it with VR goggles?
I totally agree with this sentiment and I don't think you even need VR/AR etc, to achieve it. This is a big reason why I helped build spotvirtual.com. As a kid, some of my most meaningful relationships and experiences were forged through online gaming (ever played UO?). A big part of this wasn’t necessarily the gameplay, but just the shared experience of being part of a virtual space that had its own rules.
There is definitely room to apply this same experience to a work setting, where mundane things can be transformed into something more meaningful and effective.
2) I lived through the transition to desktop os windowed environments, there was a lot of talk at the time about how we'd never use a commandline again, but things have boomeranged for many, many people still use the cli. I don't see this replacing video chat or even text chat.
3) I talked with a small company locally right after the htc vive came out, they were building tech like this (virtual meeting spaces) and I went to check it out, it was actually also the first time I had used the valve vr technology. The man interviewing me was in another room also on a vive rig. It is quite cool how eye contact works in a vr space. But at the end of the interview I left knowing that even if I got an offer I wouldn't take it but that also this technology was not going to break out in any meaningful way for a very long time. I'd been through this before and other simpler technologies just worked better.
The point of poker with friends isn't to grind out hands with an optimal strategy as quickly as possible.
I played Dominion with friends online a few times during the pandemic. And I adore how much faster it is. With all the counting, dealing, shuffling, VP calculations and so on taken care of, the game plays about twice as fast. And that really does enhance the experience for me and my friend group. It improves game feel. And game feel is so important.
For those out of loop: http://paulgraham.com/altair.html | https://archive.is/5HNc5
Metaverse is okay but considering people are depressed and isolated being on social media today I don’t see how adding even more layers between reality is going to help.
I wish technology would make IRL better, instead of delegating all problems online.
I guess this is a "metaverse" play - I like the idea of it but having tried something similar a while ago (albeit with 2D spaces) it seemed kinda pointless. I don't think the vicinity aspects really added anything in a work environment - if anything it took away from modern communication (i.e. you can't just ping someone to chat to them there and then, you had to go and "find" them in the virtual space before you could talk, unlike e.g. slack or whatever)
The only time I've seen it even get close to working was for "work socials" where it was natural to wander around and mix with people or play games together in the space - i.e. where you are not actively trying to get something done.
Honestly I'd give it a give it try because of the mozilla name ...
This reminds me of the old internet when folks tried all sorts of weird stuff, maybe failed, but they were neat attempts. I still remember Microsoft Comic Chat.
I'm really bummed out by all the negativity here on HN. Folks talk about simple web and seem to ... maybe like the idea of developers being adventurous (or maybe just founders...) but then on HN we see a volume of complaints if there isn't a clear use case / something isn't polished to high heaven.
Edit: Except for the guy that microwaved fish. Fuck that guy.
( I quickly learned about mIRC from other people on there of course ).
It's a testament to open protocols that you could have something very functional like mIRC and something "fun" like microsoft comic chat interoperate.
Fine, I give up. I'm off to install Brave.
This is one of the most hopeful take I've seen on the promise of VR, from a highly technical person:
[My Year in VRChat] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVWlgh8QP5s
I hope to run into you some day!
It makes me wonder how it would feel to walk around a virtual museum like this in VR and experience it with friends. However because the avatars are so loud it would likely detract from the experience.
[Radiohead - KID A MNESIA Exhibition (PS5)] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qW_uHohQUpo
In their free time, people watch Pixar movies and play near-photo realistic games. And have been for 1-2 decades. You seriously cannot get away with this absolute garbage. It's late 1980s VR quality. It's below second life, which is ancient.
Up the bar. Create a world where people actually want to be or this will never work.
Not too busy, not slow to render on low-end hardware, not blocky, and importantly not trying too hard to be photo-realistic. Enough spatial cues to see this as a 3D environment, though.
A world where I'd like to be is not necessarily photo-realistic at all. Some conscious suspension of disbelief is actually helpful.
There's really not all that much to do, but she liked knowing that she could walk around and goof around with me.
And my goodness, didn't he luck out with RED and Moonrise Kingdom.